Terror Interrupted: The most compelling theories on why we haven't been hit again

Three interlinked articles. Interesting.

Here are the same three articles, this time linked to Print versions (less advertising):

Terror Interrupted
The most compelling theories on why we haven't been hit again.

Reasons They Haven't Hit Us Again Answering the big question.

The official position of our government is that it is not a matter of if there will be another attack on the United States again, but when. On this, George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden seem to be in agreement. This is especially troubling to New Yorkers, who feel, with some degree of certainty, that our city remains the most inviting target for terrorists.

[snip]

Anatomy of a Foiled Plot Two would-be bombers of the Herald Square subway station find that three is a crowd.

On a rain-soaked Saturday morning nine days before the start of the Republican convention at Madison Square Garden, an Egyptian known as Dawadi left his house on Staten Island to pick up two friends. They had plans to spend the day together and to take care of a little business.

[snip]

Camp Jihad A ragtag army of cops, soldiers, and G.I. Joe wannabes play terrorist for a week in a counterintuitive counterterrorism program.

Our cell is plotting the abduction of a female infidel. Toting assault rifles and handguns, our faces covered by kaffiyehs, the ten of us gather beneath a tree to study a map scratched into the dirt. It shows an intersection where we will intercept two infidel SUVs. Our plan is to hide in the ditch that runs alongside the road, and leap out, weapons blazing, as the SUVs turn the corner. We’ll concentrate on killing the drivers first, then the bodyguards, before grabbing the woman.

[snip]

Gee an illegal alien. When do they get their guest worker passes?

"...apparently, he’s [bin Laden] concluded that the best way to wound the United States is to lock its military in an unpopular foreign war. He essentially confirmed this in his preelection videotape message. It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that all available foot soldiers are being deployed on the main battlefield and not being squandered in a low-percentage attempt to board heavily screened planes or otherwise penetrate heightened U.S. homeland security."

Another validation of the "flypaper theory" of why the war in Iraq is the right war, in the right place, at the right time. If the jihadis/IslamoNazis are in Iraq, then thy aren't available to carry out operations here!!

Agreed.

The real reason we have not been attacked again:
Al Qaeda has a state sponsor (Iran, China, Russia, Syria,???) The state sponsor was shocked and frightened by the US reaction to 9/11. US action in Afghanistan added to their apprehension. The state sponsor has basically ordered Al Qaeda to lay low and re-group.

It is absurd to think Al Qaeda is incapable of pulling off a Madrid or Russian school like attack in the US. They have not because the country that controls them has told them not to.
It is also possible that the US knows who the state sponsor is and can not actually attack the country(China or Russia) but has threatened them if there is another attack.

We haven't been hit again because when we were attacked on 9/11 we responded militarily, and with overwhelming force, providing a salutary lesson for the people who have the money and power to commit such acts.

Great post. Fascinating reading.
We need more articles like this. I think. Keep the enemy off guard.

Printed and will read on bus....
Looking forward to it.
Thanks.

Thanks.

I read the article "Reasons they haven't hit us again" and concluded the article is pure liberal spin. Listed among the top four reasons are 1) Bin Laden's patience and 3) The French. Conspicuously absent are 1) Our strong military response and, 2) Bush's consistent leadership.

The author claims that Bin Laden anticipated our strong reaction to the attacks. But based on Bin Laden's previous experience with Bill Clinton, why would he conclude that?

According to Richard Miniter, author of an excellent book Shadow War, the Clinton administration's responses to Bin Laden's previous attacks were feeble. Clinton:

1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.
2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.
3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.
4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.
6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.
7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.
8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.
9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.
10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.
11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.
12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.
15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.
16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

I would recommend Miniter's book Shadow War, which gives credit to the real reasons for our success in preventing further attacks on the country thus far. Here is a review excerpt:

"Perhaps the biggest fallout of success in fighting the war on terror is the inability for Americans to see the successes as they happen."

"This explains quite well why Richard Miniter's book is titled Shadow War and why this book is so important for people to read in order to understand how we are winning the war on the terror, and America's growing partisanship and complacency towards terror is an unfortunate byproduct of that success."

As the book explains, "there have been many clandestine victories against al Qaeda," including the capture or killing of over 3,000 al Qaeda operatives in 102 countries since September 11th.

I would have put greater emphasis on our military response, too. But perhaps it's true that the French have been helpful under the table (so to speak). I'm certainly in no position to judge that.

Anyway, the second article, "Anatomy of a Foiled Plot", was most to my liking.

-This is especially troubling to New Yorkers, who feel, with some degree of certainty, that our city remains the most inviting target for terrorists.-

B-b-b-but Elvis bin Laden said ON TAPE recently that blue states were safe! No need for terrorist duty in NYC, certainly! No need for anti-terror funding, or...OH! NOW I get it!

These are the articles that were featured on Linda Vester's FOX News noon show today. NewYorkmetro.com is the online version of "New York Magazine".

It has been my assertion since 9/11 that China has been behind AlQaeda and other terror organizations all along. (Read "Unrestricted Warfare") China knows that a conventional war against the US is unwinnable, but there are other fronts to be fought upon. The economic front is one area they are doing quite well at. The other is to fund the terrorists enough to keep us occupied and to slowly wear us down. Remember that in WW2 the Islamists sided with the Nazis as well in fighting the West. China and Islam have common goals.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ba75bb5147c.htm

CIA directed in 1995 to seek Video Pirates
Fox News Channel | 9/18/01

Posted on 09/18/2001 10:35:33 AM EDT by MarketR

This just in to Fox News....Jim Christiansen, former CIA operative just said on Fox News that the CIA was directed in 1995 to seek out Video Pirates instead of terrorists.

He stated that during a top level meeting in which CIA and FBI were present, the station chief said that all efforts were being direscted toward Video Piracy instead of terrorism. The station chief, when questioned, stated that the directive came from the DCI. Who, of course, takes his orders from the President.

Go to a mosque and hear what the iman preach to find out

It's cause they're all going to Iraq to die.

I will judge then. The French are NOT our allies.
They have done nothing but work against the U.S.
The French were in bed with Saddam......

If we are hit again, you would see the US stop playing mr. nice guy. The middle east would be toast. Literally.